At the University of Nevada, Reno, 9% of our students reported that they have never seen an adviser. An additional 10% indicated that they have an adviser, but have not seen that person within the last academic year. Furthermore, an additional 23% reported that they do not know who their current adviser is. This survey indicates a general lack of consistent use of advising by students and a lack of clear information about advisement on their part. When asked if they are assigned or choose their adviser, most students say they are assigned, but have no idea who assigned the adviser or where they can gain information about advisement in general. Responses indicate that students are confused about faculty vs. staff advising, department vs. college advising, and the general process by which one can be advised.
It is difficult to find comparable national norms with which to compare our students' satisfaction with advising. Astin, Korn, and Green (1987) noted that in 1985, 52% of university students reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with academic advising. Forty-three percent of UNR students indicated that the department has an excellent system of advising and 21% believe that the university has an excellent system of advising, both lower than the 1985 national average. It is again clear that students perceive problems with our advising system.
Most students listed comments with suggestions for improving advising, and these comments were very helpful in understanding their perception about advising on campus. Most students (83%) said advising should be mandatory. They seemed to ask for a clearly defined system that was more available to them and described the need for good information and advisers with "good attitudes" toward students.
The greatest area of dissatisfaction was the difficulty in getting to see an adviser. Many students had no information about whom to see, how to see them, and when to see them. Faculty responses mirrored this confusion, often complaining that students do not come to see them for advising, and blaming students for not using the system. Most departments indicated little responsibility to get information to students unless students seek it. Almost half of the departments said it was the student's responsibility to seek advising; students are not aware, for the most part, that it is their responsibility, and if it is, how to initiate the process.
When the responses on the department survey of departments with higher student scores on the Satisfaction with Advising Scale are compared to departments with lower student satisfaction scores, the on clear difference is the reward system for the faculty. In departments where students were very satisfied, faculty were explicitly rewarded for doing advising in the general evaluation process. In those departments whose students rated at the lowest end of the Satisfaction with Advising Scale, skepticism was expressed that good advising made any difference and no clear system was reported.
Student satisfaction with the campus advising centers (with the exception of the athletic adviser), when compared with student satisfaction with departments, was generally lower. There are many possible explanations for this, but the most apparent seems to be the difficulty in accessibility, as defined by students—too long to wait for an appointment, changes in appointments at the last minute, and some concern about "peer advising" as a less-desirable substitute.
Both departments and students place the greatest emphasis in advising on good information, both about course requirements and career opportunities, including jobs, internships, and graduate school. Interestingly, neither faculty nor students see scheduling information and graduation requirements as sufficient content for good advisement. Nevertheless, good advisement must also include guidance regarding career direction. Personal and financial problems were clearly seen as less important, if not inappropriate topics for advisement. Both departments and students appear to agree on the purpose and content of advising. Some departments indicated that they felt they did not get good information on student course work and requirements and requested annual training sessions.
About half of the students (51%) said that they would go to see their adviser if they were considering quitting school. However, the departments indicated that they had no way of knowing if their majors dropped out of school or failed to return. Several said that this information would be helpful, and they would provide follow-up if give the information.
In conclusion, this survey identifies wide variations in advising practice on campus and subsequent wide variations in student satisfaction. Those departments and colleges that pay attention to and give adequate faculty/staff resources to student advising appear to be generally successful in the eyes of their students. There needs to be a campus-wide discussion about expectations for academic advising and how best to give students accurate information on course work, broader advising that addresses career/graduate school plans, and better access to advisers. The information from students will be given to each department and each college for their use. It is hoped that departments will talk with their students to discuss students' perceptions of the success of the department's advising process.
References
Crockett, D.S. (1985). Academic Advising. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Gordon, V.N. (1992). Handbook of Academic Advising. Westport,Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LINKS TO 1993 ADVISING SURVEY SECTIONS
Student Responses | Department
Responses | Summary and Conclusion
| Assessment Home |  |